I have previously written about my experience of the candidate work in Industrial Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology . Now is the grade completed and I therefore intend to continue and tell you about my thoughts on how the candidate was performing at the Industrial Management, Chalmers. It works really bad.

Grades for the candidate work in Industrial Management, Chalmers

All groups of Industrial Economics, received in 2009, collective marks, that is, all group members within a group received the same rating. In my case, the rating of four and was thus the same for all members of my group. I think this is wrong. Some reasons for this are that:

• Historical aspects: All members of a candidate group enters with different experiences and knowledge. This is reflected as qualifications and grades. In my bachelor group was cut score between U + and 5. Is it fair that two students with very different skills get the same mark on a candidate's work? No, at least not if both do not perform equally well.
• Performance: Different individuals do not engage as much in a group project. Some choose to meet deadlines, be punctual to meetings, write, contribute constructive opinions and deal with the problem. Others do just the opposite.
• Statistics: Statistically speaking, when there is a rating spread between individuals in a group, it is illogical to score in all groups must be equal.

I'm not saying that my own contribution is total. I am not satisfied with the work, however, my workload could not be greater. It is clear that something must be wrong!

Quality assurance of candidate work

A friend at Jönköping University told me about how their candidate's work is administered. The group size is a maximum of two people. This is because the candidate work is the end of a degree. Candidate Work will assure the quality of the student so that it may be worth an examination. This is, in Jönköping impossible to attain with larger groups, which I agree. Automatically, some individuals to slip by without help and some will take a heavier work load.

Lessons from my bachelor's work

Chalmers and Industrial Finance's solution to the problem of grading and quality assurance is to give responsibility to the supervisor. A supervisor who, at best, meet the group on ten occasions. The solution to the ratings issue is to let the team members together to reach consensus on the score of the group. If a team member shall be increased, another group member be reduced by an equal number of points. You do not think that's true, but it actually works that way! The result is a terrific discussion where no one wants to be lowered.

I've learned a lot of candidate work at Industrial Economics at Chalmers. A lot of production systems, assembly lines and mounting options, however, very much of how groups work and how I function in a group. It's about getting everyone to contribute and define common goals that everyone can follow. I have also learned much of the total anxiety that arises when most do not bother to work after objectives, and when no one wants to contribute to the result.

An innovative candidate's work

I have an idea of how an innovative candidate's work could be designed for Industrial Economics, along with students from other engineering programs at Chalmers. Pick up a student from the industrial economy of the other candidate groups at Chalmers. Let I-breaker to become project manager, just as intended in working life. With a supervisor reduces the problems of controlling the group. I-breaker should also be an expert in project management and have the technological forefront by participating in technical candidate critical tasks such as to create a hybrid go-cart. Clearly there must also be opportunities to make pure economic consultancy work for those who want to (as today), but I am for greater collaboration between different programs! By gaining better control of the candidate groups, it is possible that it can work with larger groups. However, I believe that even four is too much. Three people are more reasonable.